The Rashtrakutas and their Times c21.99

c21.99

Let us now proceed to consider the attitude of our age towards the question of the intercaste marriages. These marriages, if *anuloma*, have been permitted as legal by most of the Smriti writers, both old and new; the *Nitivākyāmṛta*, which was composed in the Deccan of our period, concurs with the Smritis.⁷⁴ That they were once common in the Hindu society is proved by the rules of *ās'aucha*,⁷⁵ and partition,⁷⁶ where detailed provisions are given as to the liabilities, duties, right, and privileges of the children born of intercaste *anuloma* marriages These intercaste unions could not have been numerous, for society usually prefers marriage alliances with the equals. They, however, did exist and served the useful function of rendering the caste system flexible to a great degree. Historical examples can be cited to show that these intercaste marriages were actually taking place. The father of the famous Sanskrit poet Bāṇa had married a Sudra lady in addition to a Brahmana one; for in the 2nd Ulhāsa of the *Harshacharit* Bāṇa mentions a *pārās'ava* brother (*i. e.* a brother born of a Brahmana father and Sudra mother) of his, Chandrasena by name.⁷⁷ Since Chandrasena was the first to report to Bāṇa the arrival of the messenger from Harsha, it may be presumed that the Sūdrā and the Brāhmaṇī mothers and their children were living together under the same roof. Bālāditya, the last king of the Gonanda dynasty in Kashmir is known to have given his daughter in marriage to a Kāyastha.⁷⁸ The Jodhpur inscription of Pratīhāra Bāuka concurs with the Ghatiyala inscription of Kakkula in stating that the founder of the house, Harischandra, had two wives, one of the Brahmana and the other of the Kshatriya caste.⁷⁹ Ghaṭotkacha cave inscription of Hastibhoja, a minister of the Vākāṭaka king Devasena, informs us that Hastibhoja's ancestor Brahmana Soma had married a Kshatriya lady ‘in accordance with the precepts of the revelation and tradition.’⁸⁰ While most of the ancestors of Lokanātha, the grantor of the Tipperah copper plates, ⁸¹ (c. 650 A.D.) are described as good Brahmanas, his mother's father is called Parāśava i. e. sprung from a Brahmana father and a Sudra mother. It is therefore clear that the father of this gentleman had at least two wives, one a Brahmaṇī and the other Sūdrā. Coming down to our own period, we find that Rājaśekhara had married a Kshatriya lady, and she seems to have been his only wife. Ibn Khurdadba writing about the state of affairs in western India during our period, states that the anuloma intercaste marriages used to take place.⁸² These marriages were, however, getting more and more unpopular towards the end of our period. Alberuni, after laying down the theoretical rule that anuloma intercaste marriages were permissible, adds that in his time the Brahmanas did not avail themselves of this liberty and were invariably marrying women of their own caste only.⁸³ Sangrāmarāja, an 11th century king of Kashmir had married his sister to a Brahmana; the notions of decency of the 12th century historian Kalhaṇa were outraged by this union. The historian deplores that the king should have courted infamy by this intercaste marriage and exclaims, ‘What a great disparity between the princess fit to be the consort only of a powerful king and the Brahmana bridegroom of small mind with his hand always wet with the libation water poured at the time of the receipt of gifts.’⁸⁴ It is.